Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

"Blue noise" in the shadows. How do you shoot "black"??

No. I don't think that's what he meant or he would have used the real, whole, non-cutesy word like he did several words before. I've never heard the word "tungy" before but two of you think it means tungsten so I'll take your word for it, I reckon. Shaving two letters off the word was a real time saver. Anyway, this is off toppie. Let's carry on.

Scott Crawley said:
You're joking, right?
Click to expand...
 
Yeah it was shot with tungsten fixtures, and then white balanced to tungsten.
 
Sorry Arnold... I just figured since I put the whole word in there people would know what I meant. I'm one of those people that prefer home-made (but strongly implied) short forms to most other industry standards (particularly acronyms). My bad?

But, yeah, the original .r3d looks like it's under tungsten (confirmed by Matt above), which doesn't help the blacks... That, in conjunction with the 400 ISO and slight underexposure, definitely don't help the blue-channel in the shadows. By the way, the blue channel is "weaker" on all daylight balanced CMOS sensors... something to do with R, G, and B's wavelengths (which are different) all hitting one plane/sensor (whereas with triple CCD cams, there was an entire sensor dedicated to just blue light.)**

**take all that with a grain of salt, as it's just how I understood it (and I have a tendency to simplify things.)
 
Last edited:
Be careful white balancing... I find it really messes with tint and makes things look like shit
 
Justin Marx said:
Be careful white balancing... I find it really messes with tint and makes things look like shit
Click to expand...

+1. Before you start adjusting the image in Redcine, make sure to set your white balance correctly first or you'll end up with a bunch of problems.
 
Matt Williams said:
That's a relief...What de-noiser would you recommend for a FCP editor (He has color, and Red Giant)? I'm a DP but typically don't cut or grade the footage I shoot.
Click to expand...
I've got NeatVideo on FCP and on a few other platforms.

Don't be fooled by the web site, it's very high quality and it keeps improving.
 
Mike P. said:
Sorry Arnold... I just figured since I put the whole word in there people would know what I meant. I'm one of those people that prefer home-made (but strongly implied) short forms to most other industry standards (particularly acronyms). My bad?

But, yeah, the original .r3d looks like it's under tungsten (confirmed by Matt above), which doesn't help the blacks... That, in conjunction with the 400 ISO and slight underexposure, definitely don't help the blue-channel in the shadows. By the way, the blue channel is "weaker" on all daylight balanced CMOS sensors... something to do with R, G, and B's wavelengths (which are different) all hitting one plane/sensor (whereas with triple CCD cams, there was an entire sensor dedicated to just blue light.)**

**take all that with a grain of salt, as it's just how I understood it (and I have a tendency to simplify things.)
Click to expand...

Just a quick note - shooting at 400 ISO would actually result in a more overexposed image than one shot at 800 ISO, not an underexposed one. Think about it: you're gonna open up a stop more at 400 than you would at 800 to get the same exposure on-screen.
 
Justin Marx said:
Be careful white balancing... I find it really messes with tint and makes things look like shit
Click to expand...

Do you mean be careful about white balancing in camera or cine-x? And as long as you white balance to the correct temperature, what should you be afraid of?
 
Mike P. said:
But, yeah, the original .r3d looks like it's under tungsten (confirmed by Matt above), which doesn't help the blacks...
Click to expand...

Why is that? Is it because the tungsten key light spills into the shadows (even though it didn't visually illuminate them in this case), and the sensor picked up that warm light in the shadows which inspired more noise (because the X sensor doesn't like tungsten)? Thanks so much for this feedback! It's really helping me out!
 
Matt Williams said:
Why is that? Is it because the tungsten key light spills into the shadows (even though it didn't visually illuminate them in this case), and the sensor picked up that warm light in the shadows which inspired more noise (because the X sensor doesn't like tungsten)? Thanks so much for this feedback! It's really helping me out!
Click to expand...

No, it's because silicon isn't as sensitive to blue (as pointed out by Scott earlier), so you need more blue light to get adequate exposure to prevent noise in the blue channel - hence why daylight tends to be rendered cleaner than tungsten. When you try to balance to tungsten, you're essentially applying gain in the blue channel to normalize the image. The ideal WB would be around 500K (if I remember correctly).

That said, I've been working on a feature that's using a lot of tungsten lighting with the camera at 800 ISO, and that footage looks pretty fine. In my experience, it's only in darker situations (like your black background) that are affected adversely.
 
Follow my mantra:

Rate the camera at 800

Rate the Camera at 800

Rate the Camera at 800

Don't Rate the camera at 400

Don't Rate the Camera at 320

Don't rate the camera at 500

Rate the camera at 800

Rate the camera at 800

You will be able to make nicer pictures. Someone a few posts before mentioned why - and yes - you are right.

Rating at 800 will just open you up to a less dense negative.
 
Kevin Marshall said:
Just a quick note - shooting at 400 ISO would actually result in a more overexposed image than one shot at 800 ISO, not an underexposed one. Think about it: you're gonna open up a stop more at 400 than you would at 800 to get the same exposure on-screen.
Click to expand...

Depends how you define the image and it depends how you define "shooting at ISO 400" :)

Is it the image the raw data or viewable corrected result? One could be overexposed and the other could be underexposed depending on the case. Is "shooting" exposing and adjusting the camera setting or just adjusting the camera setting for that value?
 
Noah Yuan-Vogel said:
Depends how you define the image and it depends how you define "shooting at ISO 400" :)

Is it the image the raw data or viewable corrected result? One could be overexposed and the other could be underexposed depending on the case. Is "shooting" exposing and adjusting the camera setting or just adjusting the camera setting for that value?
Click to expand...

I guess more what I was getting at was, in an example: shooting an f/4 at ISO 400 would be more exposed than f/5.6 at ISO 800 - and so shooting at ISO 400 instead of ISO 800 would likely not be (on it's own) a contributing factor to noise in the shadows. I had taken Mike's post to be intimating that it would.
 
I can't seem to find the white balance key in the epic menu. My tint is 27!!! How do I do a proper white balance with my epic?

Justin Marx said:
Be careful white balancing... I find it really messes with tint and makes things look like shit
Click to expand...
 
Will Keir said:
I can't seem to find the white balance key in the epic menu. My tint is 27!!! How do I do a proper white balance with my epic?
Click to expand...

Hold down the white balance icon on the top of your lcd, then that opens up a sub menu where you can manually insert everything, including your tint.
 
Brian Iannone said:
I too would like to know what people are using for reducing noise. So far, I've heard that Neat Video is excellent and Resolve does well also.
Click to expand...

Any demoniac or denoise filter will do quite well, most FX an CC packages has such a nodes/functions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top